1. Introduction

Water scarcity, defined as the inability of a population to secure sustainable access to adequate quantities of acceptable quality water [1], is one of the most pressing global challenges. The Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), estimated that as of 2020, 1.4 billion people lived in areas of high water vulnerability [2]. Additionally, approximately four billion people live in countries experiencing water scarcity at least one month each year [3]. Water scarcity often acts as a driver for population displacement and generally leads to a number of challenges such as inadequate water access and animosity with host communities [4].

108 million people were displaced from their homes in 2023, marking the highest level of global displacement ever recorded [5]. Most of this displacement occurs in regions affected by protracted conflicts and climate induced disasters [6]. An estimated 3.5 million people are displaced within Somalia [7], with 2024 displacing an estimated 316,000, the main driver being conflict [7].

Displaced people often face challenges in accessing water services and many find themselves in protracted situations, having remained exile for more than five years [8]. Protracted displacement affects entire communities and not just the displaced. Yet, the displaced often perceive host communities as having better access when in fact a considerable number of hosting communities are poorly served by formal services and often live in precarious conditions themselves [9].

Rajput [10] describes the complexities of internal displacement through the lens of the Kashmiri Pandit in India. Through this case study, it is shown that displacement interacts with multiple levels including social, individual, economic, legal and political dimensions. It highlights the fragmented nature of the existing literature which is studied using standalone topics for example using legal, business or psychological frameworks [10].

IDPs are frequently conceptualised as a homogenous group in policy and programming [11]. Some IDPs integrate with host communities whilst others remain dependent on humanitarian assistance [12]. Past research has explored different circumstances of IDPs, showing how factors such as age, gender, disability shape their trajectories [13, 14]. However, these studies often oversimplify the displacement dynamics and often focus on a single site. This can obstruct effective interventions and fail to address specific vulnerabilities of different groups [15].

There has been a growing body of research on refugees and those displaced to camp- based settings which has found that access to safe and sufficient water remains a critical challenge influenced by a number of factors such as geographic location, socioeconomic factors, and inadequate infrastructure [16–19]. IDPs are defined as people forced to leave their homes as a result of armed conflict, violence, violations of human rights, natural hazards or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognised border [20]. Despite urban IDPs being the largest group of forcibly displaced people, they receive less research attention [21]. Thus, their experiences are less understood, particularly experiences around access to services like water. Furthermore, there is an absence of studies on different groups of displaced populations such as assimilated groups and impacts on host communities.

The contextual frameworks of participatory water governance guide the analysis of this research. Participatory water governance emphasises transparency, inclusive decision making, meaningful participation and accountability of affected communities [22]. Community ownership entails the community taking charge of problems and finding solutions, creating a sense of responsibility [23]. However, community ownership and management of water is shaped by the perceived availability of water [24]. In contexts of high availability or very scarce water, communities have been reported to participate less in comparison to when availability is moderate [24].

Dealing with water provision and better response mechanisms for increasing water security and ensuring adequate water facilities are needed and is central to ensuring the needs of the most vulnerable are met [25]. Most of the research in this area has not engaged with the structures behind overt inequalities between IDPs, hosting communities, and amongst other urban poor groups and the range factors including socio-political dimensions that affect their water security.

The purpose of this paper is to understand how and why experiences around water and sanitation services vary between different displaced populations and their hosting communities. The setting of the research is in Hargeisa, Somaliland, which hosts a population of 111,720 IDPs [26] in a context of protracted conflict, with a host population of one million [27]. Hargeisa also experiences significant water scarcity [28], leading to the challenge of providing adequate water services for all residents and particularly IDPs. Experiences across six sites in Hargeisa that represent a range of socioeconomic and contextual factors such as land tenure, caste and tribal clans are compared. This paper makes a key contribution to understanding the complex drivers (social, economic, legal and political) underlying the existing lack of water services for IDPs in an urban protracted setting, as well as further unpacking the nuances between assimilated, isolated and marginalised groups and their host communities. By focusing on a neighbourhood level, which is most directly linked to people’s everyday experiences and quality of life, rather than national or regional scales, this research provides a detailed localised understandings of the challenge affecting water services.

2. Methods

2.2. Study Area

This study took place in Hargeisa, the capital of Somaliland (Fig 1), an unrecognised self-declared independent state that is internationally considered an autonomous region of Somalia, where over 10% of the estimated population of 1.2 million people are IDPs [27]. It has seen significant waves of displacement since 1991 when Somaliland seceded from Somalia and declared independence [29]. Hundreds of thousands of people were forced to leave their homes as a result of the civil war between 1988 and 1991 and were internally displaced whilst others fled to neighbouring Ethiopia [30]. In recent years more than a million people have been displaced as a result of repeated droughts across Somalia [31]. Many rely on pastoralism as a primary source of livelihood and livestock production accounts for over 50% of Somaliland’s GDP [32]. A semi-arid climate with average rainfall of less than 500 mm, combined with an absence of lakes and permanent rivers severely constrains water supply [33]. The ongoing drought in the region has led to devastating livestock losses and large population displacement, as pastoralists seek alternative livelihoods in urban areas [34].

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Map showing the location of the self-declared Republic of Somaliland and the study area (Hargeisa).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000544.g001

There are three main parties competing in the general, local and parliamentary elections. The Kulmiye party remained the leading political party from 2010 to 2024. Parliamentary and local council elections are held on a regular five-year cycle with the most recent Mayor elected in 2021 [35].

Ethiopian nationals residing in Hargeisa do not have the ability to vote in these elections. There are no legal barriers for IDPs, they can participate in elections if they are Somaliland citizens and have a valid voter registration card, which requires a recognised form of identification. However, IDPs tend to have lower registration rates due to mobility, documentation issues, or lack of outreach. Although electoral data are not published by demographic group, the 2015 IDP profiling in Hargeisa found that 45% of individual households profiled had identification document compared to 53% of the host community [36].

In this paper, “IDPs” refer only to Somaliland or Somali nationals displaced within the territory and therefore not crossing an internationally recognised border. We distinguish IDPs from (i) Somali returnees who previously fled to Ethiopia and later returned, and (ii) Ethiopian nationals residing in Hargeisa.

Access to water is one of the major challenges faced by the residents of Hargeisa and the majority are not served by formal water services [37]. The provision of water to the city is managed by a government agency, Hargeisa Water Agency (HWA). HWA is a state-owned utility with operational autonomy, working alongside the relevant ministry. It is not a municipal department directly accountable to elected city government [38]. In 2018, HWA provided services to 30% of the city’s population through 21,000 household connections [39]. Since 2018, substantial investments have been made by the EU, the UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, the German development bank, and others, which has led to an increase in bulk water supply and the expansion of the distribution networks (HWA, personal communication, 20 May, 2024). Current water production capacity is 18,000m³/day from three wellfields [40], and HWA now serves 41,000 households (HWA, personal communication, 20 May, 2024). However, the challenges of providing access to safely managed drinking water services is acute in Hargeisa. As the city has expanded, pre-existing service deficiencies have been highlighted, and service coverage is still restricted meaning that only a small percentage of the population are benefiting from piped water.

As of July 2024, IDPs in Hargeisa reside in 20 IDP sites recognised by the government, with an approximate population of 140,000 people (NDRA, personal communication, 13 May, 2024). These IDP sites are across the five administrative districts in Hargeisa with the main concentration in the East of the city. In contrast, in 2015 there were 14 sites and a population of 71,753 [36], demonstrating the growth in IDP numbers.

2.3. Categorisation and Selection of IDP sites

A set of selection criteria was defined, considering factors such as the sociodemographic backgrounds of IDPs, as well as the geographical and spatial characteristics of the locations, including population density, distance from the city centre, and access to facilities and services such as education and healthcare. Access to drinking water services was based on the SDG ladder [41]. Where safely managed access is an improved source on the premises, basic access is a source within 30 minutes round trip, limited is a source over 30 minutes round trip, unimproved access is dug wells and unprotected springs and surface water as drinking directly from a water source such as a river dam, lake and pond [41]. For access to services such as bus links, schools, mosques etc., good access was defined as proximity within 500 meters, fair access ranging from 500 meters to one kilometre, and poor access beyond one kilometre [42, 43]. Geographical location was classified based on distance from the central marketplace (Waaheen Market) as follows: inner (less than 3 km), middle (3–5 km), and outer (greater than 5 km) [44]. Isolated sites were defined as remote areas, not densely populated and lacking significant infrastructure [45].

Somali society is structured around five major clans, segmentary lineage system, these are Darood, Dir, Digil-Mirifleh, Hawiye, and Isaaq [46]. Clans serve as a primary identity marker, shaping everything from personal relationships to conflicts and power structures. Outside of these clans are marginalised caste groups such as Gabooye also referred to by the derogatory label “Midgan” [47]. In Hargeisa they are concentrated in the Daami neighbourhood (Daami A and Daami B IDP sites) and have historically faced discrimination and exclusion, including employment opportunities with work limited to ‘unattractive’ jobs such as shoe making, slaughtering meat, waste picking and faecal sludge removal [48]. In recent years, there has been progress with representation in local, regional and national government including members of parliament [49]. However, social separation remains with the tradition of members from Gabooye not being allowed to intermarry with individuals from other clans [47]. Sites with large proportions of Gabooye were categorised as ‘marginalised’. IDPs at Abdi Bidaar were initially living in the Daami area but relocated to their new site, these IDPs are also from the Gabooye caste.

Following an initial scoping visit in October 2022, six sites (Statehouse, Mohamed Mooge A, Ayah 1, Qalah, Daami B and Abdi Bidaar) and their neighbouring hosting communities were selected based on these criteria and are shown in Fig 2. This enabled to capture variations across different contexts while maintaining a manageable scope.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Map showing all 20 IDP sites in Hargeisa including the six sites included in this study (shown in black).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000544.g002

The selected sites cover a range of factors such as caste and tribal clans as well as contextual factors such as land tenure, and capture different challenges experienced by three distinctive IDP groups; assimilated IDPs, isolated IDPs and marginalised IDPs (see definitions in Table 1). This also ensured that the selected sites were representative of IDPs in Somaliland and reflected on the diverse IDP experiences across the country.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Definitions of key terms used.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000544.t001

In the six sites the number of households ranged from 100 to over 2000 (Table 2), the average number of people per household is nine and this commonly includes extended family members. The oldest site was established in 1991 and the newest in 2023.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Characteristics of IDP sites.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000544.t002

3. Results

3.1. Participant characteristics

A total of 106 people participated in the focus groups and individual interviews. 12 focus groups were conducted with 96 participants and a further ten interviews with hosting communities. The participants’ age ranged from 18 to 70 years. The number of years displaced varied, ranging from five years to 33 years. The female participants outnumbered male participants, in total 62 out of the 106 participants included in the study were females (see Table 3).

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Summary of participants demographics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000544.t003

3.2. Overview of IDP Sites

Many IDP sites in Hargeisa have transformed into urban slums, where various population groups coexist under poor conditions [36]. The type of dwellings is usually a mix of Buul, a traditional Somali hut constructed from sticks, cloth, and other readily available materials (see Fig 3A), and Jiingaad, structures made from corrugated metal sheets (see Fig 3B). Additionally, Qalax and Ayah 1 have several permanent concrete dwellings.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. A) Buul, Statehouse (Source: Author); B) Jiingaad, Daami B (Source: Author).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000544.g003

Statehouse (camp based).

Statehouse, a camp- like settlement, was selected as an extreme case to understand the processes involved and to generate insights that are transferable elsewhere. It is in a prominent area associated with displacement and was established in 1991 on government land in the centre of the city. The site is densely populated and resembles a traditional camp. The risk of eviction is moderate, the IDPs hope to be moved to a more permanent location where they are hopeful they will be allocated plots of land.

The ongoing water project funded by the German development bank has installed a number of water kiosks at the site, but at the time of interview these were not operational. The IDPs main source of water is through donations by the public and charities, donkey carts and small water trucks. Many also walk to kiosks located in Tubataaryada, one km east of Statehouse, for more affordable water. There are 100 usable latrines at this site many of which are shared amongst the 2280 households.

Mohamed Mooge A (isolated).

This site is dilapidated and the IDPs living here are amongst the most deprived. The land is private and the IDPs fear eviction as the city expands, and more landowners build properties nearby. These IDPs do not pay rent compared with other IDP sites on private land. However, they cannot construct any permanent structures including latrines, and open defecation is largely practiced. The HWA network does not reach this site, but they receive free weekly water trucking from an Islamic aid organisation.

Daami B (marginalised).

Somaliland has very strong clan cleavages, and the residents of Daami are amongst the most marginalised and belong to a minority caste, Gabooye. As these IDPs are from a marginalised caste, employment opportunities are very limited for them. These residents have not been relocated but have been given the land that they settled on. As this location is in the centre of the city, the land is very valuable. Many have been reported to be selling their plots of land and moving to the outskirts of the city, the IDP site has therefore significantly reduced in size as people sell and move out.

This location has good access to water with HWA pipelines reaching this site, but many residents cannot afford the cost of a new water connection. Many therefore rely on donated water by the public or charities, or purchase what they can from donkey carts and motorised trucks. There are a number of water kiosks nearby supplying HWA water at lower rates but many report issues with queues and water pressure.

Sanitation is a significant problem in this area, with many people reporting overflowing latrines and resorting to burying waste when they cannot afford the high maintenance costs. Numerous families are also forced to share latrines.

Qalax (isolated).

This is the furthest IDP site located in the outskirts of Hargeisa and these IDPs have been relocated by the government in 2021 from the police office. The majority live in corrugated iron sheet houses and own their own plots of land. Due to the geographical location the area surrounding this site is not built on and not many services are available. However, to reduce dependency on the government a maternal and child health centre and other social infrastructure such as a school and a mosque have been built in this location by donations from various donors. There is also a huge presence of NGOs assistance programmes at this location including free water trucking, the construction of latrines and communal water tanks.

Ayah1 (assimilated).

This site is another well-established IDP site where returnees from Ethiopia settled following the civil war. IDPs here own their own land and live in better accommodation. These IDPs are self- settled and have integrated amongst the host community. The water pipeline does not reach this site and water trucking is the only option to meet water needs.

Abdi Bidaar (isolated and marginalised).

The 100 IDP households in Abdi Bidaar, named after the land donator, were previously living near open water in a flood-prone area and were part of Daami A. These IDPs are from a marginalised caste, described above and have been relocated by the government in July 2023 about 5km away from their previous location due to safety concerns. In the new site, the IDPs are living in shelter made from corrugated iron sheets and have been given security of land tenure. These IDPs have been provided with paperwork for their land as land tenure has historically contributed to disputes and forced evictions. The main source of water is purchased through private trucking and several latrines have also been constructed by NGOs.

3.3. Themes

Both deductive and inductive coding was done, this yielded themes and subthemes that were used to develop a codebook (S1 Table). The final codebook explored major themes identified in the literature and themes that emerged from the FGD and interviews.

The experiences and perceptions of IDPs and their hosting communities with regards to water and sanitation services related to five main category themes and subthemes, namely, 1) water access and infrastructure with subthemes: unaffordable cost of water, lack of formal water infrastructure, reliance on informal service providers; 2) sanitation and waste management with subthemes: lack of facilities, cost of latrines, poor waste management; 3) support systems and external assistance with subthemes: support from NGOs and Government, support from host community, IDP-based support networks; 4) comparisons with other IDP sites with subthemes: access to resources, living conditions; 5) community involvement with subthemes: collective capabilities, involvement with hosts, internal involvement (Table 4).

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Overview of themes and subthemes identified through thematic analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000544.t004

3.3.1. Water access across IDP sites.

Out of the six sites, only two (Daami B and Statehouse) are served by the water network, but none of the participants at these sites are connected. All six sites depend on informal service providers, either donkey carts, motorised carts and water trucking to provide their daily household water. Many participants expressed the high cost of water as a significant challenge, particularly in the absence of a formal piped water supply system. Participants citing geographical location, land tenure and the cost of connecting as major barriers for not having formal piped water.

It was mainly participants at Daami B who frequently mentioned their hesitation to approach HWA, especially due to the upfront payment required for new water connections. A female participant explained that the financial barrier severely impacting low-income communities. Although IDPs are aware that they can approach HWA directly, they are discouraged from doing so due to the advance payment demand.

Another participant elaborated on the issue, highlighting the negative experiences with HWA reported by others, further contributing to their reluctancy to engage. They described a case where a family was initially asked to pay six million shillings for installation, which HWA reduced to four million shillings, yet this lower amount remains unaffordable for many in the community.

Participants reported that there are taps (water kiosks) for more affordable water but have “long queues and it is very difficult to access.” Additionally, kiosks do not operate daily and “there is barely enough to go around” due to pressure. Many conveyed the need for piped water which could alleviate some of the financial burdens they face. The current tariffs for domestic households connected to the water system are shown in Table 5. Households are charged using an increasing block water tariff, where per unit charge varies according to the volume of water consumed.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. Cost of water by source¹.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000544.t005

In comparison, IDP households pay over five times more than households connected to the water system for the same quantities of water, this is well beyond the reach of many who resort to borrowing and carefully managing their water usage: “If a person can afford it, they buy it; otherwise, they borrow water from others. The water tanks we use cost 75,000 shillings for five barrels, which is expensive for someone with a large family. Five barrels of water are used for washing, cooking, and bathing, and can last for ten days if used sparingly. However, each household needs to refill at least twice, which is very difficult for a family of six like mine. We either have to borrow or get it on credit.” Statehouse Female FGD.

A few participants reported receiving free water, though supply was insufficient to meet their needs. At Mohamed Mooge A, a female participant noted that the site receives free water deliveries twice a week with three trucks arriving. However, a male participant highlighted the inadequacy of this support noting, that the amount does not meet all the households.

In the isolated sites, there are no alternative water vendors, and water trucking is the only option. Water trucks are less incentivised to come to areas where only small quantities of water will be purchase. At these sites participants expressed concerns over the quantities of water needed to be purchased which is a minimum of 5 barrels. A female participant in Qalax pointed to the long distance from the city centre as a key obstacle, stating that they can only get trucked water and explained that “water trucks come infrequently, leaving some households without water for days.”

Some participants at Daami B were concerned that tensions could arise when trying to extend water services (illegally) and resistance from those already connected, suggesting a sense of competition for a limited resource.

Closely linked to cost of water and infrastructure were the limited storage facilities such as tanks. Purchasing in higher quantities is more cost effective as the cost per unit decreases as the quantity increases. However, many reported only having jerry cans: “only about 200 households have water tanks, the majority don’t have tanks. Some households don’t have the plastic barrels, the majority have jerry cans.” Statehouse Female FGD.

IDPs also described various seasonal impacts. In the rainy season many rely on the river. A female participant explained that “people get water from the dirty river, if you come with us now you will see people fetching water from the river and washing their clothes.” Statehouse Female FGD.

Several participants reported having to walk long distance carrying jerry cans by hand (see Fig 4) or on wheelbarrows due to the site layout (narrow alleyways and poor vehicle access). A male participant at Statehouse, explained that because the area is densely packed and lack roads, water trucks are unable to reach them forcing mainly women bearing the physical load of water on their backs.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 4. Women filling jerry cans from donated water barrels outside Statehouse (Source: Author).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000544.g004

3.3.2. Sanitation access across IDP sites.

Sanitation emerged as a recurring theme in the analysis, with the lack of access to adequate facilities being a critical concern. None of the sites have adequate number of latrines. The numbers sharing is over the maximum number of 20 people per latrine level as specified in the Sphere Handbook [Sphere 58]: “In the morning there are long queues by the toilets as ten households, men and female all use that one toilet, this will result in poor hygiene and health risks. We need toilets, it is our first need.” Statehouse Male FGD.

At Daami B, a female participant described the challenges related to latrines constructed by organisations. Many of the facilities are now overflowing and unable to meet the demand. One noted that in some areas five families share a single latrine and when they fill up, they are unable to afford the fifty dollars to maintain it, families move to use the next available one repeating the cycle. Another participant added to this, describing the overcrowding sanitation facilities and noting that each family have multiple children and emphasised the need for one toilet per household to maintain hygiene.

Many have difficulty accessing toilets as they are usually locked by the households to control usage, others had difficulty with the cost of construction and land tenure. At Qalax, an IDP reported that they cannot dig due to the rocky terrain and they “cannot afford the costs” to get someone construct the pit latrine. At Mohamed Mooge A, female participants emphasise that they are prohibited from constructing latrines, because the site is on private land and out of a necessity rather than a choice are “forced to defecate in the open, and we are tired of this, the place is very dirty.” At this site participant expressed wanting to be relocated. Gender-based violence is rife at this location, one of the female IDPs reported that “there have been occasions where women have gone out to relieve themselves and they have been raped.” A male participant also raised safety concerns particularly when it rained and waterborne diseases “our children swim in the dirty water when it rains.”

Another topic that arose from the analysis was waste management, many participants reported waste remaining uncollected when households cannot pay the 20,000 Shillings per month private waste companies charge for waste collection. Households resort to dumping waste in the dry riverbed, burning waste or dumping waste in front of other households: “trash is everywhere you turn, especially in the small alleyways. People are dumping it in the small alleyways where there are not many people walking. During the rainy season, the trash flows into our homes.” Statehouse Female FGD.

There were significant differences between males and females and contradicting statements when it came to waste management, particularly seen at Statehouse and at Daami B where waste was not a priority. At Daami B males reported no support when it came to waste management. However, females reported a reduced cost for waste collections: “Since our neighbourhood is a low-income area, we are charged less compared to other neighbourhoods, at most we are charged twenty thousand shillings at the most. Those shops you see that are full they are charged 30 thousand, so they look at each neighbourhood, so when we say we cannot get that money, they charge less.”

3.3.3. Support, Comparisons, and Community involvement.

Beyond water access, sanitation and waste management, three cross-cutting themes emerged from the data: support systems and external assistance, comparisons with other IDP sites, and community involvement. These themes are highlighted together below.

Participants widely reported a general lack of support from Government and NGOs. Overall, the assimilated group at Ayah 1 reported less support. Participants also frequently compared their living conditions and support received to those in other IDP sites, often expressing that the support they receive was less than others and expressed a sense of abandonment, with one stating: “we are the final IDPs when it comes to help.”

This research contains two IDP sites (Qalax and Abdi Bidaar) that have been newly established and include IDPs that have been relocated through the Government-led relocation scheme. These sites are isolated and in the outskirts of the city. When asked, IDPs reported that they had no input in their relocation process. The process is managed by various government bodies including the Municipality of Hargeisa and NDRA. Although IDPs often ask to be relocated close to their current locations, due to the number of households and the lack of available land this is not possible. Through the FGDs, it became apparent that IDPs are experiencing more difficulties at these new sites, with limited job opportunities and less access to water. Furthermore, relocated IDPs encounter social challenges, particularly related to facilities such as schools and with transport and mobility. A Male in Qalax, located approximately 12 km from the centre of Hargeisa, does not consider his site as being part of Hargeisa: “Life was better in the city. We had access to hospitals, schools, and jobs. We fetched water from taps and didn’t know about water trucking. We had four taps in our neighbourhood, and we could fill our containers whenever we wanted. Now, we pay seventy thousand shillings for a tanker and have to pay for transportation to the city. Previously, people walked to work or school without needing transportation. Now, we struggle with expensive water and transportation costs.”

Similar sentiments were expressed across the other relocation site, were females highlighted the trade- offs of relocation. While they appreciated the improved air quality and the environment in their new sites, they noted drawbacks in access to water, markets and education.

The participants suggested that some activity by organisations felt like a “tick- box” activities, emphasising that more importance is placed on fulfilling expectations than addressing the actual needs of the IDPs. Many also expressed frustrations at the government, including having unsatisfactory interactions and initiative appearing to be driven by formal requirements rather than genuine impact. Participants emphasised that initiative seemed more focused on creating a public image for the government rather than offering long-term solutions or genuinely benefiting the community. When the participants were asked about a post seen on social media about free water being provided to the community, with government officials in the Daami area, they described it as a “photo opportunity” that the free water was only intended for that day. Many IDPs also reported that they preferred cash over in-kind items.

Participants stated that there has been a continuation of a recent trend of reduced support since covid-19. At Qalax and Abdi Bidaar, participants reported that support after the relocation improved and was scaled up. However, this support did not remain consistent, a male participant at Abdi Bidaar further explained that they had not received water aid for two months. Similarly, at Qalax a male FGD participants reported that past organisations gave them free water, but this is no longer available.

All IDP participants reported that support was not enough to cover their needs. In terms of water support, some sites receive water trucking for free however a participant reported that “they only bring one or two water trucks at a time, and this is not enough help to cover all the households.”

Hosting communities were interviewed at three out of the six sites: Statehouse, Daami B and Ayah 1. Most of the host communities interviewed had no problem with IDPs residing nearby, however one participant living near Statehouse expressed concerns about fire risks and the overcrowding conditions.

At Statehouse, IDPs are waiting to be relocated through the government scheme, however, as this is the biggest IDP site in terms of the number of households, relocation has been difficult. A host interviewee explained the potential tensions that can arise between them and the IDPs the following way: “the land that they are living on is government land, so they always feel threatened that the land is going to be taken from them and they will be relocated. This situation could potentially lead to protests or other forms of unrest in the future when the government decides to relocate them.”

The host communities in areas where water infrastructure reaches are all connected to the water system, these include host community interviewed at Statehouse and Daami B. At Statehouse all four participants interviewed reported that IDPs come to them for water. One respondent reflected on the scarcity of water in the area, describing how IDPs turn to host communities for support, often rely on informal water services and frequently join long queues at water kiosks.

At Daami B, none of the three host participants interviewed reported IDPs asking them for water, one participant when asked responded “they don’t ask anything from us.” None of the hosting communities interviewed mentioned any impacts on their own water services due to the presence of IDPs alone, but due to a combination of increase population and the lack of infrastructure. A host stated that “our water has been impacted, but I think this is also due to the city expanding and not just the displaced people. The existing infrastructure was initially designed for a smaller population.”

Others only reported on their presence and that “it is very common to see long queues for water.” At sites where both host communities and those displaced use water trucking, impacts on water were not reported. Host communities tend to remain with a particular operator for water trucking, a participant at Ayah 1 explained: “Our water services haven’t been impacted by the presence of displaced people, we have no taps that have reached us, so we only have water trucking. I have a trucker that I am a customer for and comes whenever I call him.” However, when asked about sanitation a host explained: “It doesn’t affect us; our houses are closed off. Their sanitation is poor they have no latrines, they don’t come to us to use our bathrooms.”

The broader societal divide was evident at Statehouse where both hosts and IDPs mentioned underlying tensions between them and non- Somalis, commonly referring to them as Oromos and Ethiopians: “Another problem we face in our camp is the presence of non-citizens from Ethiopia who are putting a strain on our neighbourhood by leaving garbage on the streets. We need our government to relocate them because they do not maintain cleanliness, which affects our community’s health. At night, their children and ours clash, causing further issues.” These references reflect participants’ perceptions of non-citizen residents and are analytically treated as attitudes towards non-citizens rather than towards IDPs.

At the other two sites with host communities, attitudes towards IDPs were generally positive particularly in Ayah 1. One participant shared, “We don’t have any bad opinions,” while another added, “they are our friends, we help each other.” A third participant emphasised, “they are Somalis just like you and me,” highlighting a sense of unity and solidarity between the hosts and the displaced community. However, at Daami, predominated by marginalised caste a societal divide is evident with participant expressing: “We don’t talk with them, and they don’t bother us,” another participant also stated: “I don’t interact with them much.”

All the different IDP groups expressed willingness to participate in processes that affect their access to water services. Although some focus group participants reported that their committees were more organised and work better with organisations and government, there was a general consensus that IDPs wanted to do more. At Daami B, a male participant explained that “we are actively involved in the decision-making process. We have a committee that meets regularly to discuss issues and find solutions.” One female participant who lives in Ayah 1 was concerned about the missed opportunities and mentioned that their “committee leader’s phone is always off, so we miss important communications from NDRA.” Some participants reported various institutional factors that hindered them in participating. At Statehouse, a female participant described efforts by IDPs to collectively approach HWA for assistance: “We can form groups and visit the water agency- we can ask them for help if they listen to us or if they refuse us. But we have gone before, and they have told us they cannot install pipes inside the settlement, so we don’t know where else to go and complain, they have told us that they can only have pipes in the corners of the settlement. We don’t know anywhere else to complain.”

Another issue that arose was maintenance and ownership of facilities. An example of this was sanitation facilities, at Abdi Bidaar site. Newly constructed latrines had broken doors and missing hand washing stations (Fig 5). The handwashing station consisted of a jerry can with a tap, which was often repurposed for other uses due to the lack of proper facilities.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 5. A. Latrine with a missing handwashing station, B Latrine with a missing door.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000544.g005

4. Discussion

In this study, the two primary priorities stated by the IDPs during the FGDs were household latrines and water access. Overall, numerous factors were found to affects IDPs’ ability to access water and sanitation including geographical location, land tenure and costs. Coping strategies involved borrowing water, getting it on credit and using it cautiously. Female participants expressed greater concern over how latrines are full and having to share facilities. For those with limited or no access to sanitation facilities, sharing and open defecation were the most common coping strategies.

While many of the water challenges (such as the cost of connecting) expressed by IDPs are universal, this analysis highlights inequalities in the experience between the three groups of IDPs. Somaliland’s has very strong clan cleavages, and the residents of Daami B and Abdi Bidaar are amongst the most marginalised and belong to a minority clan. However, as the findings suggest, the challenges with water were not due to their marginalisation but were largely due to other factors such as the site location for the case of Abdi Bidaar. Many of these IDPs reported previously accessing water more easily, with more alternatives such as donkey carts, but now rely solely on water trucking.

A piped water connection is a cost-effective investment for many households as there are high prices per unit of non-piped water [59]. Unconnected households relying on alternative sources such as private wells, public wells, public taps, and informal service providers is widely reported in the literature [60]. These unconnected households are not limited to IDPs, they also extend to poor unincorporated neighbourhoods such as households in marginal barrios in Guatemala cities (informal peripheral settlements) [61], peri-urban settlements in Nakuru [62], and Jakarta’s kampungs (dense urban villages) [63].

Unconnected households cope with long waiting times, poor water quality, intermittent supply, and high costs [64, 65]. Private operators are profit-oriented and operate based on full cost recovery [66]. In Mexico City, water tankers charge 15–55 times the price of the public water utility [67]. Even when households seek formal connections, the costs can be substantial [68]. Fixed charges often include lump‑sum payments for the initial connection, and recurrent fees that cover meter reading, billing, and other routine expenses [69]. These costs can push poor households to obtain individual connections they cannot afford to maintain, resulting in disconnection [64].

Alternative water pricing strategies such as subsidised prices are intended to ease these burdens and are well known and detailed in the literature [70–73]. However, these subsidies tend to benefit richer consumers more than poorer ones, as low‑income households are disproportionately less likely to be connected to the piped network [72]. As a result, many poor households are missed entirely, and large percentage of existing subsidies for private water taps are regressive. Common mechanisms used to target water subsidies are among the least effective at directing benefits to the poor [73].

The government of Somaliland have undertaken several initiatives to try to improve the quality of life for IDPs, including the relocation schemes. For example, IDP that are on private or public land are relocated. However, many of these new sites are on the city margins, where access to basic services is limited. Many participants expressed the lack of meaningful engagement and unsatisfactory interactions with officials during the relocation process. They felt that the project was primarily driven by formal requirements and the desire to showcase progress for external audiences, rather than genuinely addressing the community’s needs or creating lasting impact.

NDRA Strategic Plan (2022-2026) outlines the IDP policy framework for enhancing the resilience of IDPs in Somaliland, including in water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) [74]. The policy aligns with international standards such as the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and aims to guide NDRA in resource allocation, define stakeholder responsibilities and protect the legal rights of displaced people [75]. It identifies NDRA as the lead agency for coordinating assistance and assigns sectoral responsibilities to various ministries. Strategic objective 3 of the policy focuses on strengthening the resilience and self-reliance of IDPs by ensuring equitable access to public services. Its key interventions in the WASH sector include the provision of water tanks, water trucking, construction of latrines and hygiene awareness campaigns. Despite this the gaps between the strategic objectives and actual service delivery needs reflects challenges in operational capacity. For example, plans for constructing 500 latrines, distributing 1,500 household water tanks and deploying 2000 water tankers for both IDPs and refugees is insufficient.

These findings align with numerous studies and literature that have demonstrated the challenges of providing services for displaced populations and thus the vulnerabilities of IDPs [76–78]. These challenges include data availability and misalignment of goals among partners and are influenced by factors such as status, gender and other contextual elements [79]. The factors impacting water access among IDPs in this study included geographical location, land tenure and economic status. Many of the IDP participants have no work or are in low paying jobs, making water unaffordable or representing a significant portion of their income. IDPs lack of financial means or infrastructure to secure reliable services, makes them particularly susceptible to waterborne diseases and poor sanitation conditions [80]. The access to sanitation facilities, coverage and waste management described by participants, echoes situations observed in similar settings [81].

These findings do support previous research [82, 83] which found relocation schemes to isolate IDPs. In a recent study of displacement in four Somali cities, Bakonyi & Chonka, found that relocation often exacerbates the marginalisation of IDPs by moving them to peripheral areas with inadequate infrastructure [82]. Similarly, Cuaton et al. [84], conducted a study of four post-disaster resettlement villages in the Philippines. They found that different governance structures, community engagement, and resource management affect household water security in these communities, providing a detailed case study of their experiences after resettlement [84].

Daami B is in the centre of the city and the land is very valuable. Its proximity to HWA pipelines offers better access to water. However, many IDPs are unable to afford the high cost of connecting, reinforcing economic barriers to water access. These findings are similar to those reported by Jackson (2013), where minorities are not disadvantaged in terms of access to water [85]. Much of Hargeisa water supply system was built in 1974 and cover mainly the northern parts of the city, specifically those north of the dividing river, including the Daami neighbourhood. However, like other urbanised regions in the global south, Hargeisa’s water supply is constrained by three main factors widely reported; limited water resources, lack of infrastructure and rates of population growth [86].

Several prior studies have demonstrated disparities in geographical location and access to services [87]. However, these studies often fail to consider how factors such as the lack of community engagement can exacerbate inequities in access. The lack of active participation and consultation with local communities can exacerbate existing disparities, leaving vulnerable groups, such as IDPs, without sufficient support or representation in decision-making processes related to water distribution and infrastructure development.

Although Somaliland holds competitive elections, political voice does not translate uniformly into service improvements because access is mediated by administrative inclusion and tenure. In Hargeisa, obtaining a household connection depends not only on ability to pay, but also on stable residence, recognised occupancy, and whether a neighbourhood is incorporated into planned network expansion. Host households and some assimilated IDPs in established areas or near existing pipelines can therefore secure more reliable access, while peripheral or marginalised IDPs remain dependent on kiosks and vendors. Limited documentation, mobility, and tenure insecurity also constrain engagement with formal accountability channels and reduce capacity to negotiate access through administrative routes, consistent with accounts of weak responsiveness when residents approached HWA.

De Haas introduces a capabilities framework to better understand displacement within the broader context of social change processes [88]. His work offers valuable insights that can guide both humanitarian responses and long-term development strategies, addressing the multifaceted challenges faced by displaced populations while helping to design effective, sustainable interventions. In evaluating the water and sanitation experiences and challenges faced by IDPs, it is essential to consider their capabilities. Although some initiatives by organisations encourage participatory processes, few engage directly with IDPs as a means of change, the results showed that IDPs in Hargeisa have limited say in their relocation and around the support they receive including that of water. Schensul [89] proposed factors that define participatory processes. Such processes included mutual learning between organisations and stakeholder groups and addressing authentic needs of affected communities. Furthermore, studies [90, 91] supports the immersion of communities served to find solutions, with studies stating their inclusion as conducive to better outcomes and a critical component of inclusive water governance. This current study focused on impacts through IDP and host community lenses. While previous research has documented the inclusion of different stakeholders [92], this paper goes further to explore how different groups exert agency. The findings show that IDPs in Hargeisa have limited agency in decision-making processes, this was the case across all IDP groups. This lack of involvement was reflected in low levels of ownership as evidenced by issues such as broken latrine doors and missing handwashing stations. IDPs preferred to use the jerry cans intended for handwashing to store and transport water, highlighting the disconnect between intervention design and community realities. Community ownership and involvement is important for acceptance of interventions and tends to be related with better maintenance, sustainability and functionality [93, 94]. These findings further reinforce the correlation of water scarcity and community participation supporting Araral [24].

Gender emerged as a critical dimension in water access, particularly for IDP women who are often tasked with collecting and carrying water for their households. This includes not only ensuring there is enough water for drinking and hygiene for their children but also managing the logistics of calling suppliers to secure their water, which IDPs reported to be an additional burden amidst their other duties. This is similar to that of Bakonyi & Chonka’s research exposing the ways in which IDPs in urban Somalia navigating socio-economic inequalities [82].

In contrast to previous studies that have reported tensions between host communities and IDPs over resource allocation [95], this study found no such conflicts. Instead, the findings suggest relatively neutral dynamics, with no indication of resentment or competition for resources. While negative attitudes toward IDPs have been documented [96, 97], the data from this research does not support this and the host community did not express many negative attitudes toward IDPs. Araya et al. [98] explored how hosting communities perceive three methods of providing water service to displaced people: through permanently expanding the system, through using temporary infrastructure or making no changes to the system. It found that socio-demographic parameters and characteristics such as income, education, media use influenced respondents’ support for the three methods. Those with higher incomes and strong local ties supported permanent expansion of the water system, regional differences were also seen with the North supporting temporary infrastructure. [98]. Despite socio-political factors like ethnicity fuelling conflicts in other contexts [99], no significant negative attitudes toward IDPs were expressed by the host community. Host participants did not perceive services as being diverted away from them and were supportive of the expansion of services to include IDPs. This may reflect the socio-cultural environment of Hargeisa, were many host communities see IDPs as part of the community. This was the case in the host interviews in Ayah 1 and Statehouse. However, in Daami B, the limited interaction between host communities and IDPs raises questions about the sustainability of these positive dynamics.

This study shows that geographic location and IDP involvement are the primary factors influencing water access for IDPs in Hargeisa. While marginalisation was less significant than expected, socio-political dynamics such as displacement to peripheral areas and the high costs of water connection continue to shape access disparities. The main disparities between the IDP groups were the difference in support received by those that are assimilated and who live amongst the hosting community. They reported often receiving less support than those relocated to isolated sites and those that are marginalised, creating further disparities in service access.

This article compared IDPs and hosting communities’ perceptions of water and sanitation access in Hargeisa. It explored people that become assimilated with host communities, others that remain in IDP sites and those that are relocated to the city margins. It was found significant disparities in how different groups experienced access to water services. While some groups, particularly those that had been relocated to isolated sites benefited from improved water services, this support was inconsistent. Others assimilated groups had not seen much support. Additionally, it was found that geographic location and economic status were the main factors affecting access to water. The study also found that IDPs use a wide range of coping strategies such as borrowing water and sharing facilities to manage their limited access to services.

Limitations of this study include the study period, a single point in time (cross-sectional) was examined, therefore only a small timeframe in the process of their displacement has been examined. There is limited sample size, particularly with the host communities where only ten participants were interviewed, all ten expressed overwhelmingly positive attitudes towards IDPs and reported no tensions or that IDPs were depleting resources. However, it is acknowledged that these responses may not be representative of the broader context in Hargeisa and it is possible that some participants may have withheld negative views. The recruitment of male participants for the focus groups were more difficult and participants that were included were very young (18–20) or over 60 and did not include many of the working age population. Additionally, a key limitation of this study is the discrepancy between the support reported by NGOs and government agencies (not included in this particular study but in future studies) and the experiences shared by IDP participants, many of whom indicated that they had not received or were unaware of such assistance. This suggests potential bias in the data not fully capture the challenges IDPs face in accessing support. Future work should explore the aforementioned limitations by incorporating more hosting communities, where possible include equal numbers of males and females and have a longitudinal design to track participants over time. Triangulation is also necessary, comparing data from various sources to provide a more accurate and balanced understanding.

5. Conclusions

The paper makes several practical and theoretical contributions. It offers valuable insights within the context of Hargeisa, it further unpacks the nuanced differences between assimilated, isolated and marginalised IDP groups and their host communities and provides in depth accounts of their experiences in terms of water access and support received. It also highlights the limited role IDPs play in processes that affect their access to water services and the impacts on informal services such as irregular pricing structures. Irregular pricing structures refer to the cost of a non-network service where prices vary unpredictably and the problem they create is the lack of transparency making it difficult for IDPs to anticipate costs, compared to network supply. Prices fluctuate due to seasonal scarcity, long transport distances, bulk minimum purchase requirements, vendor discretion all of which reinforce the irregularity of non‑network water prices.

Theoretically, the paper contributes by offering a new lens for analysing IDPs not as a homogenous group but distinguishing between assimilated, isolated and marginalised. Furthermore, the paper offers broader discussions on participatory water governance by highlighting the structural barriers that exclude IDPs.

The contribution of this research includes addressing a critical gap in understanding the experiences of various groups of IDPs which are often generalised and overlooked. Furthermore, this research contributes to the knowledge on community agency and the understanding of the role community participation in formal and informal processes, particularly the integration of IDPs and other affected communities in displacement settings. Understanding the experiences and priorities of displaced people is essential for targeted interventions that are better accepted. Practical recommendations for HWA include implementing flexible payment plans for new connections, offering increased discounts for vulnerable communities and strengthening community engagement to create an environment where people feel comfortable expressing their concerns.

Despite the unique characteristics of the Hargeisa context, the findings of this study have global implications. This case study emphasises how water-related challenges disproportionately impact certain communities leading to disparities in water service provision. The challenges faced by IDPs in accessing water in Hargeisa reflect broader issues that are relevant to other displacement settings facing these interconnected issues.

Supporting information